2013 (4) TMI 908 - SC - Indian Laws

Supreme Court: Life Estate, Consequential Relief Required

Venkataraja and Ors. Versus Vidyane Doureradjaperumal (D) Thr. L. Rs. and Ors.

Venkataraja and Ors. Versus Vidyane Doureradjaperumal (D) Thr. L. Rs. and Ors. - (2014) 14SCC 502 Issues Involved:1. Whether Thayanayagy Ammalle had acquired absolute title over the suit property.2. Whether the suit was maintainable without seeking any consequential relief.Summary:Issue 1: Absolute Title of Thayanayagy AmmalleThe Supreme Court examined whether Thayanayagy Ammalle had acquired an absolute title over the suit property. The High Court had held that she had acquired absolute title and thus, the sale deed dated 16.7.1959 executed in favor of Vedavalliammalle was valid. However, the Supreme Court found that the High Court's finding was not based on any evidence and reversed it, holding that Thayanayagy Ammalle was only a life estate holder. This conclusion was supported by the fact that the Hindu Succession Act, 1956, was extended to Pondicherry only at a later stage, and the customary Hindu Law applicable at the time did not confer absolute title to a Hindu widow with a life estate.Issue 2: Maintainability of the Suit Without Consequential ReliefThe Supreme Court addressed whether the suit was maintainable without seeking consequential relief. The trial court had dismissed the suit on the grounds that the Appellant/Plaintiff had not sought the consequential relief of delivery of possession. The First Appellate Court reversed this decision, stating that since the property was in possession of tenants, the Appellant could seek possession under the Pondicherry Non-Agricultural Kudiyiruppudars (Stay of Eviction Proceedings) Act of 1980. However, the High Court reinstated the trial court's decision, emphasizing that the suit for declaration was not maintainable without seeking consequential relief, as required by the proviso to Section 34 of the Special Relief Act, 1963.The Supreme Court upheld the High Court's view, citing precedents that a mere declaratory decree without consequential relief does not provide the needed relief and is generally non-executable. The Court emphasized that the purpose of the proviso to Section 34 of the Act 1963 is to avoid multiplicity of proceedings and loss of court fees. Since the Appellants/Plaintiffs did not amend the plaint to include the relief of possession, the suit was not maintainable.Conclusion:The appeals were dismissed, affirming that Thayanayagy Ammalle was only a life estate holder and that the suit was not maintainable without seeking consequential relief.